Panel Day Reflection

My panelists were Mary Anne Hegeman, Tom Little, and David Zuckerman.

Mary Anne Hegeman a Mormon was a little hesitant in answering questions when she did answer them. She didn't seem too eager to give her opinion on topics when asked about them and she seemed to be very nervous about the interview all together. I think that because she thought she was the only one in the room who was against gay marriage she wanted to protect herself and went into a defensive state. But i do believe that from what i peiced together from what she said that she was against same sex marriage. I was a little dissapointed that she didn't answer with her opion on the matter and seemed to say that god was the answer for everthing. This in itself was pretty dissapointing because being someone who does not really have a religon as of now i thought it was frustrating that she didnt really want to talk for herdelf and thought that god had all the answers. Not that she can't believe that god will come someday with Jesus and rule us all, if thats what she wants to believe, but i think that she should look at what god stands for not just to herself. God is suppose to be a loving spirit or something and if he really is that understanding why would he be agiainst gay marriage?

Tom Little a lawyer and former legislator would answer questions from a legal standpoint. His opinion didn't seem to come out in his answers to the questions. He would talk more about the laws and other legal things that surrounded the issue. What I would say is he may not totally agree with gay marriage, but seems to be conflicted between agreeing with gay marriage and not agreeing with it. He just hasn't made up his mind about it and he didn't want to tell us that he did or didn't agree with it. His information was very... educational, but it lacked almost like heart? Well I don't know if that’s the right word to use, but it seemed to be lacking enough to keep me satisfied with it. If he had shown just a tad more of his own opinion or interest in the topic I think his information would have been extremely helpful. In all I felt that he was good at informing us on the legal area of the topic, but not so great on the opinion part.

David Zuckerman currently a veggitable farmer was a former reprisentitive for Chittenden County gave the best answers when it came to opinions. He seemed to be pro same sex marriage and i liked it when he answered the questions. He really tried to answer them as best he could and gave his opininon as well. He was a great person to interview because he was not afraid to say what he thought as well as look at the isuue from others points of veiw and even agreeing with the other painelist when he thought there answers were better than his.

Interveiws

1. Outright Vermont: Corrine Mertz, Youth Coordinator  Corrine@outrightvt.org
2.  Freedom to Marry
3. Hutington church

Court Cases

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to say that same-sex couples had the right to marry.

Case

On April 11, 2001  Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders or GLAD sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 200. Each of the couples had been in long term relationships with each other and several had children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses, The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Department on May 7, 2002, and the plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Ruling

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Baker v. Vermont was handed down on December 20, 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples.

Case

The case was brought by three same-sex couples who applied for and were denied marriage licenses in the towns of Milton, Shelburne and South Burlington. The couples subsequently sued their respective towns, and the state of Vermont, requesting a declaratory judgment that the license refusal violated Vermont's marriage statutes and Constitution.  The state, along with two of the towns, moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that no relief could be legally granted for the plaintiffs' grievances. The trial court, located in Chittenden County, granted the defendants' motion, ruling additionally that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages, and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing".

Ruling

The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples.

Current Interpetation

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire all allow gay marriage and as of March 3, 2010 The District of Columbia will recognize gay marriage. Main did put gay marriage through the legalizing process, the law was never put through because the motion for a people's veto. In August 2010, a federal district judge in California ruled that the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages (passed in 2008) violated the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This means that there are tecnically 5 states that allow ame sex marriage. This means that all the other states either do not allow gay marriage or they have no say as of right now.

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/what-states-allow-gay-marriage/

Constitutional Connections

To the right there is a picture of the 14th amendment. Section one of this states that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Now when looking at this does that not mean they don't have the right to take away same sex marriage. That if they do they are going against the law laid down by our for-fathers? "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" look at this clause. It is sating that the states are not allowed to take away the rights of the citizens of the United States. By restricting who you are allowed to marry and what rights you have by marrying that person then that is taking away rights and not allowing you to the persute of happiness. So why exactly do we have to go against what was said so long ago just because we don't agree with it? If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't, but don't try to separate the people who have found love in each other even if they are of the same sex. This states that no state can take away the rights of there people, yet DOMA (that can now no longer be used in court) contradicts this. It is restricting and taking away peoples rights that the constitution states they can't take away.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Issue Explination

Same sex marriage is a very controversial issue right now in the USA. Many people want to keep us traditional and then there are those who wish that same sex marriage will someday be accepted or at least tolerated by everyone. The reality of the matter is there will never truly be any agreement on the matter because everyone has there own beliefs and opinions that they rely on. This issue isn't just a I don't believe in this or I do believe in this because there are many people who may not see a problem with same sex marriage, but don't want there children to be taught about it. The people who accept same sex marriage are not happy because as of right now people who get married who are the same sex do not get all the rights that a marriage between a man and a woman are allowed. This is why the issue is not quiet so black and white because each person has and opinion and they may have some condition as to why they support or do not support this issue.

http://issues.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1580330

Gay Marriage

My topic is gay marriage between heterosexual couples. As of right now the situation is that the Obama administration has said that the defence of marriage act (DOMA) can not be used in court. There are many who do not agree with this because they want to keep marriage traditional, between a man and a woman. But as of this point they may no longer use DOMA in court to fight against gay marriage. With many states voting to not have gay marriage and few voting for gay marriage there seems to be little tolerance for the issue. With such little tolerance for the issue many same sex couples have been thrown into limbo where they live.

What I don't understand is why this is such a big issue in the first place. Heterosexual couples are not doing any harm in my eyes, but really why is it so many are against it? It seems to just be two people who have fallen in love, but anyway there are many who are outraged about the ruling to no longer use DOMA and what I want to know is how DOMA worked in court in the first place. Could this issue cause fighting among the states in the USA?